4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Iaşi.
5.  On 21 December 2000 the county commission in Iaşi for the application of Law no. 18/1991 (“the county commission”) authorised the applicant, as inheritor of C.C., to recover possession of 20.4 ha of land situated in Rediu and ordered the local administrative authorities to enforce that decision.
6.  The applicant’s submissions to the town council to execute that decision were to no avail. The mayor’s refusal to prepare the documentation pertaining to the acquisition of title prevented the applicant from obtaining an ownership title.
7.  In 2001 the applicant brought proceedings against the Mayor of Rediu village and against the local commission in Rediu responsible for the application of Law no. 18/1991 seeking to have them ordered to prepare the documentation pertaining to the acquisition of title. She also claimed a daily pecuniary penalty until execution.
The local authorities of Rediu village stated that it was impossible to ensure the execution of the decision of the county commission on the ground that third parties had been allowed to take possession of that land. An expert’s report produced in the proceedings certified that the surface of 20.4 ha had been allocated to thirty-four persons.
8.  On 3 February 2003 the Iaşi Court of First Instance allowed the action and ordered the Rediu local commission to provide the applicant with the cadastral plan and with the official record certifying that she had been able to take possession of the 20.4 ha of land, as specified by the decision of 21 December 2000. It also ordered the Mayor of Rediu to pay the applicant a pecuniary penalty of 300,000 Romanian lei for each day’s delay in enforcement. The court dismissed the local authorities’ plea that it was impossible to execute that decision due to the fact that the land had been attributed to third parties, considering that the applicant could not be held responsible for what was the authorities’ fault.
That judgment became final on 26 May 2003.
9.  On 31 July 2003 the bailiff, at the applicant’s request and following a meeting with the mayor in his capacity as the chairman of the local commission, certified in an official record that the latter had not executed the judgment of 3 February 2003. The bailiff enjoined the mayor to enforce that judgment.
10.  On 1 July and 24 November 2005 the applicant requested the Iaşi Prefecture to identify 20.4 ha of land in a location adjoining Rediu village, as there was a lack of available land in Rediu. Eventually, the applicant changed her request, claiming only 16 ha of land.
11.  The State Property Authority (Agenţia Domeniilor Statului) informed the county commission, at the latter’s request, that it had identified an unoccupied plot of land of 16 ha, with the cadastral identification T6, T8 and T9, placed under the administration of the Agromixt company, a company that used to be responsible for the management of property belonging to the State.
12.  On 26 July 2006 the county commission upheld the request and varied the decision of 21 December 2000, authorising the applicant to recover possession of the 16 ha of land situated in Miroslava village, which was under the administration of the Agromixt company. It further stated that the provisions of the present decision were to be carried out by the local commission in Miroslava responsible for the application of property laws.
13.  The Miroslava local commission and the Mayor of Miroslava brought proceedings for the annulment of that decision on the ground, inter alia, of an existing final decision ordering the Rediu local commission to allow the applicant to take possession of land and of the fact that the issuing authority, namely the county commission, may not itself annul a previous decision.
The county commission submitted that by the contested decision it had offered the Miroslava local commission land in a location that was vacant from a judicial point of view, with the aim of proceeding to the enforcement of the judgment of 3 February 2003. It also submitted that the proposed plot of 16 ha of land had been offered from the reserve of the State Property Authority, and not from that of the Miroslava local commission. As provided by Law no. 268/2001 regarding the privatisation of the companies having under their administration lands from the private and public property of the State, that land was to be transmitted, at the request of the county commission and on the basis of a protocol, to the local commission.
On 18 May 2007 the Iaşi County Court, by a final decision, dismissed the request of the Miroslava local authorities.
14.  According to the applicant, P.R.V., the then Prefect of Iaşi and head of the county commission, and I.F., the then head of the State Property Authority in Iaşi, claimed from her 3 ha of land out of the area of 16 ha as a “condition” of enforcement of the administrative decision of 26 July 2006. Following a complaint lodged by the applicant and her husband with the Anti-Corruption General Directorate within the Ministry of Administration and Interior and with the National Anti-Corruption Directorate within the General Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, the two officials and two other persons were first arrested for a thirty-day period and then committed for trial for corruption. The criminal proceedings are pending.
15.  On 23 August 2007 and 7 March 2008 the applicant requested the county commission and the Miroslava local commission to enforce the administrative decision of 26 July 2006.
An exchange of official letters also took place between the Mayor of Miroslava and the State Property Authority in Iaşi with regard to the enforcement of that decision. The Mayor of Miroslava informed the Authority that in reality the location of the 16 ha plot of land, with the cadastral identification T6, T8 and T9, was not vacant, but was claimed by third parties entitled to receive that land and also by the Miroslava Town Council. He also stated that the administrative decision of 26 July 2006 did not mention an obligation on the Miroslava local commission to allow the applicant to take possession of that land.
16.  So far the applicant has not received her land.